The PC gaming community has largely gotten over this, because we've had to deal with it for so many years. Many of us have even embraced digital distributors like Steam (and, to a lesser extent, Origin), whose downloadable games, forever tied to online accounts, cannot be resold or even returned. Surely we're all aware that this isn't the natural state of things — that when we pay for something, we should own it — but we're quickly moving toward an all-digital era in which the things we buy aren't really "things" at all. Perhaps video games are actually behind the times, in that regard. You can't resell the songs you buy on iTunes, and people stopped complaining about that a long time ago.
However, while people who buy PC games have had plenty of time to digest the prospect of a non-existent used game market and sales that feel more like indefinite rentals (which might need to be "returned" if the company running the authentication server goes bankrupt), console owners have not. They're ignorant of much of this, and what I've heard is that they're about to get a rude awakening.
It's not a new rumor, but it's been started up anew thanks to fresh quotes from Eidos co-founder Ian Livingston, who says (according to Destructoid):
With the next Xbox, you supposedly have to have an internet connection, and the discs are watermarked, whereby once played on one console it won’t play on another. So I think the generation after that will be digital-onlyWhether the games for the next Xbox will each be married to an Xbox Live account, or to the physical hardware inside of an Xbox, I'm not really sure. Either way, this is bad news for GameStop, GameFly, and anyone else who wants to make money by selling or renting out used games. If DRM has been the industry's attempt to destroy the used game market, this will be the final nail in the coffin. Certainly, we'll still be able to privately resell some of our non-Xbox games — DRM-free PC games, for example — but with an entire next-generation console taken out of the equation, there won't be enough business to justify having a shelf for pre-owned games at any game store.
I suppose I should point out that I don't really care if GameStop goes out of business or resorts to selling new merchandise exclusively — their prices for used games are awful anyway — but the whole idea of eliminating used games on an entire platform is bad for players as well. Sure, those of us playing PC games have gotten used to this, and we've learned to compromise with the current state of things, but nobody wants another step in the wrong direction.
Nobody except greedy developers and delusional fanboys, I mean.
There are those who will claim that used games are actually bad for the game industry, despite the fact that no other industry needs to have its workers complain about the used sale of its products. (When was the last time someone told you that buying used furniture is bad for the furniture industry?) They'll even say that buying a used game is just as bad as piracy, because it puts no money in the hands of developers, despite the fact that it does put money back in the hands of people who buy new games... and despite the fact that, while piracy is morally questionable, buying a thing from a person who owns that thing is not. (When was the last time someone told you that buying used furniture is equivalent to robbing a furniture store?)
But I guess we all know which way the industry is going despite what people think. Or... maybe not. Only a few days ago, Eurogamer reported that Sony has taken a stance opposite that of Microsoft, and that the next PlayStation console will not be blocking used games. I can only wonder if this means the PlayStation 4 will sell better than Microsoft's next console. If consumers want to make a statement with their purchases, it likely will. On the other hand, consumers are pretty dumb.
